Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33141657›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Annual mammographic screening to reduce breast cancer mortality in women from age 40 years: long-term follow-up of the UK Age RCT.

Stephen Duffy, Daniel Vulkan, Howard Cuckle, Dharmishta Parmar, Shama Sheikh, Robert Smith, Andrew Evans, Oleg Blyuss, Louise Johns, Ian Ellis and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Optimising Investment in Health Innovations in Europe.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Analysing Breast Cancer Screening Trends in Rural Saudi Arabia: Vision 2030 Context.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Updates in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Stephen DuffyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4901-7922
Daniel VulkanCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4738-9378
Howard CuckleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-2450-2403
Dharmishta ParmarCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8767-8364
Shama SheikhCancer Prevention Group, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7498-4538
Robert SmithCancer Screening, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3344-2238
Andrew EvansDivision of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3320-0215
Oleg BlyussCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0194-6389
Louise JohnsCancer Prevention Group, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2837-1682
Ian EllisFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5292-8474
Peter SasieniCancer Prevention Group, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1509-8744
Chris WaleCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jonathan MylesCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1198-1209
Sue MossCentre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8463-3160
Queen Mary University of London · GBKing's College London · GBAmerican Cancer Society · USTel Aviv University · ILUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27047Department of Health 10/57/55Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere remains disagreement on the long-term effect of mammographic screening in women aged 40-49 years.

objectivesThe long-term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial that offered annual mammography to women aged 40-49 years. The estimation of the effect of these mammograms on breast cancer and other-cause mortality, and the effect on incidence, with implications for overdiagnosis.

designAn individually randomised controlled trial comparing offering annual mammography with offering usual care in those aged 40-48 years, and thus evaluating the effect of annual screening entirely taking place before the age of 50 years. There was follow-up for an average of 23 years for breast cancer incidence, breast cancer death and death from other causes. We analysed the mortality and incidence data by Poisson regression and estimated overdiagnosis formally using Markov process models.

settingTwenty-three screening units in England, Wales and Scotland within the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

participantsWomen aged 39-41 years were recruited between 1990 and 1997. After exclusions, a total of 53,883 women were randomised to undergo screening (the intervention group) and 106,953 women were randomised to have usual care (the control group).

interventionsThe intervention group was invited to an annual breast screen with film mammography, two view at first screen and single view thereafter, up to and including the calendar year of their 48th birthday. The control group received no intervention. Both groups were invited to the National Programme from the age of 50 years, when screening is offered to all women in the UK.

main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase of the trial (i.e. before the first National Programme screen at 50 years), mortality from all breast cancers diagnosed after randomisation, all-cause mortality, mortality from causes other than breast cancer, and the incidence of breast cancer.

resultsThere was a statistically significant 25% reduction in mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase at 10 years' follow-up (relative rate 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.97; LIMITATIONS: There was 31% average non-compliance with screening and three centres had to cease screening for resource and capacity reasons.

conclusionsAnnual mammographic screening at the age of 40-49 years resulted in a relative reduction in mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years. It is likely that digital mammography with two views at all screens, as practised now, could improve this further. There was no evidence of overdiagnosis in addition to that which already results from the National Programme carried out at later ages. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for research on the effects of modern mammographic protocols and additional imaging in this age group.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN24647151.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

AdultBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMammographyMedical OveruseMiddle AgedUnited KingdomAGEBREAST CANCERMAMMOGRAPHYSCREENING

Identifiers

PMID33141657
PMCPMC7681269
OpenAlexW3096305413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.